This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns how the Hague Convention addresses custody and whether a “ne exeat” provision gives a parent an affirmative right to prevent a child’s removal.
The Convention’s purpose is to protect the parent who has the primary relationship with the child from having that relationship severed by removal of the child.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, the Hague Convention requires the return of a child abducted in violation of a custody right.
Petitioner argues that the “ne exeat” provision does not create an affirmative right for the father to determine the child’s residence.
According to Ms. ANDERS, the Court must decide whether a joint‑right to determine residence under a divorce decree qualifies as “custody” for purposes of the Convention.
What each side argues
Petitioner
According to Ginger Anders, the ne exeat provision gives the petitioner power to prevent exactly the harm that is the Hague Convention's central concern.
According to Petitioner, the ne exeat provision does not give any affirmative right to the father to determine the child’s residence.
According to Petitioner, only seven courts of last resort have addressed this issue, despite the Convention’s 81 member countries.
Respondent
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Scalia asked a question during oral argument.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg questioned whether the parties relied on the order or merely on the statute.
According to Justice BREYER, justice Breyer raised concerns about interpreting “custody” broadly under the treaty.
Justice Sotomayor asked Ms. Anders to confirm that the Convention’s purpose is to decide which court will determine the child’s future.
According to Justice ALITO, justice Alito sought an example of a court order that would give a parent a custody right under the Convention.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The Court’s interpretation will affect how the Hague Convention is applied in child‑abduction cases, influencing which courts have authority to decide a child’s residence.
According to Ginger Anders, clarifying the definition of “custody” will determine whether parents can invoke a “ne exeat” provision to block a child’s removal.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- a7e805356235c5a9bcfc-r1-e4252ced49a05b56.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.